A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

I may be well off, but I wouldn't classify myself as rich. I'm also not white, and not racist (I have direct ancestral backgrounds from four different continents, so being racist would be very, very hard to do), and I proudly voted for Romney, because Obama is a fiscal death sentence (socially, I don't give two craps).

So, in short, can we NOT stereotype who votes for who? It's just as bad as someone who votes for Obama (or not) because he's half black.

Why is it that elections in the US seem to bring out the worst in people. Regardless of which side of the fence you are on, be thankful you have the ability to vote.

As an outsider I feel that Romney just wasn't the right guy for the republican party but the best they could do at this time. (I cant believe they cant find more suitable candidates)

I do believe that the US needs some sort of stability for the next little while. Even though Obama hasn't been effective in his 'change' promises, it appears everything has been 'relatively' stable. After eight years of turmoil, I cant imagine it is easy to turn around a beast the size of the US.

The leftwing media went wild after the election, when analysis showed that many poorer Americans supported President Obama and entitlements could have been a major reason why. Liberals always like to think of themselves as noble, and the thought that some vote buying could have occurred is deeply offensive to them. Nevertheless, the facts speak for themselves.

Americans earning less than $30,000 a year gave the President about seven million more votes than Governor Romney. All told, Obama defeated Romney by three and a half million votes. The math is clear.

But what about motivation? How can you assign entitlements as a voting factor? Well, what else is there?

Were lower-income Americans voting to support the $16 trillion dollar debt? The eight percent unemployment rate? The nearly five thousand dollar a year decline in wages for working people?

No, many lower income voters were supporting the expansion of means-tested entitlements like food stamps, Medicaid, and welfare payments along with Obamacare where about 30 million Americans will have their health insurance paid for by other Americans. When you have individuals in more than 100 million American households receiving some kind of federal subsidy outside of Medicare and Social Security, that will mean something at the ballot box.

Especially because Mitt Romney proposed to change all that.

But, why is doling out so-called "means-tested entitlements" a bad thing? Isn't it a sign of a humane society?

Financial safety nets are surely worthy. We can't let the elderly and children suffer because they don't have resources. But what's happening in America is far more than simply expanding a needed safety net.

Twenty years ago, the feds spent 9% of the total budget on entitlements other than Medicare and Social Security. Now the number is 16%. Liberals scream that's because of the bad economy! Not true.

Twenty years ago, unemployment among African-Americans was 14.3%. This year it is 14.3%. In the Hispanic-American precincts, unemployment in 1992 was 11% - today it's 10%.

It is the liberal culture that is driving the entitlement mentality, and that is destructive to the country. The truth is that folks who get stuff are not likely to be as motivated as people who work for things. Freebies sap initiative.

We are living in a "where's mine" age. "If at first you don't succeed, then ask for things to be given to you." A record amount of Americans are receiving food stamps, and more workers are on federal disability than ever before. The Democrat Party actively supports the entitlement expansion and that absolutely helped Barack Obama get reelected earlier this month.

However, if we continue down this road, say hello to Emperor Nero. Same thing happened in Ancient Rome. Look it up. The population became weak and unmotivated and Roman power collapsed as individual ambition was crushed by selfishness and dependence on the state.

The leftwing media went wild after the election, when analysis showed that many poorer Americans supported President Obama and entitlements could have been a major reason why. Liberals always like to think of themselves as noble, and the thought that some vote buying could have occurred is deeply offensive to them. Nevertheless, the facts speak for themselves.

Americans earning less than $30,000 a year gave the President about seven million more votes than Governor Romney. All told, Obama defeated Romney by three and a half million votes. The math is clear.

But what about motivation? How can you assign entitlements as a voting factor? Well, what else is there?

Were lower-income Americans voting to support the $16 trillion dollar debt? The eight percent unemployment rate? The nearly five thousand dollar a year decline in wages for working people?

No, many lower income voters were supporting the expansion of means-tested entitlements like food stamps, Medicaid, and welfare payments along with Obamacare where about 30 million Americans will have their health insurance paid for by other Americans. When you have individuals in more than 100 million American households receiving some kind of federal subsidy outside of Medicare and Social Security, that will mean something at the ballot box.

Especially because Mitt Romney proposed to change all that.

But, why is doling out so-called "means-tested entitlements" a bad thing? Isn't it a sign of a humane society?

Financial safety nets are surely worthy. We can't let the elderly and children suffer because they don't have resources. But what's happening in America is far more than simply expanding a needed safety net.

Twenty years ago, the feds spent 9% of the total budget on entitlements other than Medicare and Social Security. Now the number is 16%. Liberals scream that's because of the bad economy! Not true.

Twenty years ago, unemployment among African-Americans was 14.3%. This year it is 14.3%. In the Hispanic-American precincts, unemployment in 1992 was 11% - today it's 10%.

It is the liberal culture that is driving the entitlement mentality, and that is destructive to the country. The truth is that folks who get stuff are not likely to be as motivated as people who work for things. Freebies sap initiative.

We are living in a "where's mine" age. "If at first you don't succeed, then ask for things to be given to you." A record amount of Americans are receiving food stamps, and more workers are on federal disability than ever before. The Democrat Party actively supports the entitlement expansion and that absolutely helped Barack Obama get reelected earlier this month.

However, if we continue down this road, say hello to Emperor Nero. Same thing happened in Ancient Rome. Look it up. The population became weak and unmotivated and Roman power collapsed as individual ambition was crushed by selfishness and dependence on the state.

Actually, if you listen carefully to Jindal's comments, he doesnt spend as much time disagreeing with the principles embodied by Romney's comments as he does condemning the fact they were uttered out loud. Basically, what I got from it was more like 7 minutes of "you can't say that stuff and expect to get elected by the folks you just insulted", and 15 seconds of "they are not choosing to be unemployed, they are unemployed because the economy sucks".

Even that 1 brief admission does not actually refute the correlation that Romney was drawing. The fact remains that someone who wants to expand or maintain the social safety net, rather than contract it, offers a more appealing choice to those who are struggling financially. That is true even if you are honestly spending every waking moment doing everything you can to try and find a job, and of course it's true for those who spend their time waving their free Obamaphone in the air on the streetcorner to demonstrate for the news cameras why America is so great.

He never says "Republicans should promise the same sort of safety nets to get elected in 2016", he says "Republicans should stop publicly disparaging those who consume that huge safety net". Not the same thing, which is great, because it means he gets it, so if he ends up on the ticket in 2016, he'll appeal to the ever growing demographic who obviously would rather vote for someone who looks more like them, thus increasing the chance of returning fiscal conservatism to the White House.

Actually, if you listen carefully to Jindal's comments, he doesnt spend as much time disagreeing with the principles embodied by Romney's comments as he does condemning the fact they were uttered out loud. Basically, what I got from it was more like 7 minutes of "you can't say that stuff and expect to get elected by the folks you just insulted", and 15 seconds of "they are not choosing to be unemployed, they are unemployed because the economy sucks".

Even that 1 brief admission does not actually refute the correlation that Romney was drawing. The fact remains that someone who wants to expand or maintain the social safety net, rather than contract it, offers a more appealing choice to those who are struggling financially. That is true even if you are honestly spending every waking moment doing everything you can to try and find a job, and of course it's true for those who spend their time waving their free Obamaphone in the air on the streetcorner to demonstrate for the news cameras why America is so great.

He never says "Republicans should promise the same sort of safety nets to get elected in 2016", he says "Republicans should stop publicly disparaging those who consume that huge safety net". Not the same thing, which is great, because it means he gets it, so if he ends up on the ticket in 2016, he'll appeal to the ever growing demographic who obviously would rather vote for someone who looks more like them, thus increasing the chance of returning fiscal conservatism to the White House.

Sorry but you missed the point completely if you believe as Mitt Romney does that the only problem with his comments is that he said them out loud. That thinking is just an extension of the same insult you just claimed to understand is wrong. That is EXACTLY the problem Republicans have right now with a changing electorate and that is THE reason Mitt Romney lost the election. All the coded xenophobic language intended to appeal to mostly southern white voters alienated many non-white voters including Asians who gave over 70% of their vote to Obama. If you look at the electoral map you'll clearly see Romney won most of the southern states and lost everywhere else. That's not a coincidence. Ironically southern states are generally less affluent than the rest of the country and they consume a disproportionate amount of government services than other states.

By the way the vast majority of those who "consume the social safety net" happen to be white, not black or hispanic as is implied by the comments above.

What Jindal clearly understands that you and Mitt Romney don't is that all people are basically the same. Everyone wants the same things in life. Dividing people into makers and takers is the true definition of divisive class warfare. Allowing yourself to believe that entire groups of people are only interested in receiving gifts from the government with no aspirations beyond that is proof that you don't get it. If you want voters to accept Republican ideas and principles you have to connect with them and get them to like you so they are willing to hear your message. As Jindal says the way to get voters is to like you is like them first and treat them with respect, not insult them. Telling people what you think they want to hear to get their vote, then disparaging them behind closed doors is the way to lose elections.

And speaking of "stuff" what about all the "stuff" Mitt Romney and the Repubs promised all those billionaire donors who contributed so generously to his Republican super packs? They didn't cough up all that dough just cause they liked ol' Mitt. There were all kinds of strings attached to those dollars and if Romney won the election you can damn well bet they would all be calling in their chits. The Republican party is just as generous to big business and millionaires as you claim the left to be to poor minorities.

Sorry but you missed the point completely if you believe as Mitt Romney does that the only problem with his comments is that he said them out loud. That thinking is just an extension of the same insult you just claimed to understand is wrong. That is EXACTLY the problem Republicans have right now with a changing electorate and that is THE reason Mitt Romney lost the election. All the coded xenophobic language intended to appeal to mostly southern white voters alienated many non-white voters including Asians who gave over 70% of their vote to Obama. If you look at the electoral map you'll clearly see Romney won most of the southern states and lost everywhere else. That's not a coincidence. Ironically southern states are generally less affluent than the rest of the country and they consume a disproportionate amount of government services than other states.

By the way the vast majority of those who "consume the social safety net" happen to be white, not black or hispanic as is implied by the comments above.

What Jindal clearly understands that you and Mitt Romney don't is that all people are basically the same. Everyone wants the same things in life. Dividing people into makers and takers is the true definition of divisive class warfare. Allowing yourself to believe that entire groups of people are only interested in receiving gifts from the government with no aspirations beyond that is proof that you don't get it. If you want voters to accept Republican ideas and principles you have to connect with them and get them to like you so they are willing to hear your message. As Jindal says the way to get voters is to like you is like them first and treat them with respect, not insult them. Telling people what you think they want to hear to get their vote, then disparaging them behind closed doors is the way to lose elections.

And speaking of "stuff" what about all the "stuff" Mitt Romney and the Repubs promised all those billionaire donors who contributed so generously to his Republican super packs? They didn't cough up all that dough just cause they liked ol' Mitt. There were all kinds of strings attached to those dollars and if Romney won the election you can damn well bet they would all be calling in their chits. The Republican party is just as generous to big business and millionaires as you claim the left to be to poor minorities.

1. If you look at the electoral map you'll clearly see Romney won most of the southern states and lost everywhere else. That's not a coincidence.

2. Everyone wants the same things in life.

3. Dividing people into makers and takers is the true definition of divisive class warfare.

4. Telling people what you think they want to hear to get their vote, then disparaging them behind closed doors is the way to lose elections.

5. And speaking of "stuff" what about all the "stuff" Mitt Romney and the Repubs promised all those billionaire donors who contributed so generously to his Republican super packs? They didn't cough up all that dough just cause they liked ol' Mitt. There were all kinds of strings attached to those dollars and if Romney won the election you can damn well bet they would all be calling in their chits. The Republican party is just as generous to big business and millionaires as you claim the left to be to poor minorities.

I'll start off by saying that I don't claim allegiance to either of party. I consider myself free to agree/disagree with both depending on the issue. Hardliners, IMHO, don't do the country and our process any justice. Obligatory caveats aside, a few things from your post, though (note that these aren't attacks, but pointing out a couple of things in fairness):

1. Romney did win most of the South, but did not otherwise lose everywhere else. Most of Romney's large losses were in the Michigan, New Mexico, the Northeast, West coast, and Hawaii. While still losses, Ohio and Florida were very close races. He took about half of the Midwest and most of the Plain and Rocky Mountain states.

2. That's a subjective statement as it depends on what scale you are referring to. On a macro scale, most, if not all, people want to be happy (well, not sure about those goth and emo kids... ). However, diving down more, peoples' goals differ. On a more micro scale, just look around your work place and take note of the people, young and old, that coast in their careers vs those that strive for more.

3. Admittedly, I have not gone through the whole thread so I do not have the whole context in which you make this statement (re: makers/takers & class warfare). Both sides have done it, but the 'Robin Hood-esque' notion of more heavily taxing those with AGI's of 250k+ doesn't detract from it either. That is for all practical purposes taking from the 'rich' to give to the 'poor'. It also ignores comments put forth by Democrats regarding those people [making 250k+] being able to afford tax attorneys to lighten their effective tax rate, thus dodging paying their fair share. To some degree, more tax revenue will be raised but I think it will be far from what was expected. Those same people will find more loopholes and outlets with which to shift their money. Stating that 'rich' people can afford to pay more only furthers the entitlement mentality currently plaguing our country. I don't disagree that a number of them can afford to pay more, but at the same time you are deviating from the notion of fairness to penalize their success(es). The problem is the loopholes and dated tax code. Fix the real problem.

4. With all due respect, you don't think both sides do this?

5. Big business is to Republicans what Unions are to Democrats. Neither side is innocent.

Theres an older battle going on of Ideals here. Socialist Communism and things in between those 2 names and idea of a democratic republic.

All you need to do is look at the communist goals of 1963 which I have pasted for you. We are basically at the point where we are just another satellite socialist state of a larger socialist communist country... one where their economy will grow leaps an bounds consistently in the foreseeable future, where ours will wane into a typical socialist economy 1-3% GDP....as we produce/manufacture overseas, service jobs become redundant in the US and if you are not willing to move where the jobs are then you become further dependent on handouts or help. Historically communism was always the enemy, and for good reason, they in many cases violently oppress the people from their freedoms.

Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963
Current Communist Goals
EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, January 10, 1963

Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.

At Mrs. Nordman's request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following "Current Communist Goals," which she identifies as an excerpt from "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen:

[From "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen]

CURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war. (Mulitculturalism, global trade, UN still exists but does nothing of great value, Illegal immigrants breaking the laws of the country but will get amnesty throwing off the balance of beliefs and views)

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war. (We cant afford wars anymore, however, Obama to Medvedev when on the topic of removing missle defense shields- "This is Imy last election. after my election, ill have more flexibilty" )

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength. (Obama Admin: Wants to decrease the nuclear weapon number further to below global defensive levels, meaning we could not hit all critical enemy sites if we were at war, we would simply be over run, see 2016 the movie it is also quoted in there)

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war. (Cheap abused labor force!! come and get it in communist China!!)

5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites. (USA gives more aid money to the world then anyone else thus depleting our resources and in many cases for nothing and with no accountability of what the money is used for .... sounds like the bail out to me)

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination. (IMF and see above)

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress. (done, except those countries that do not honor any treaties or agreements ... IE communist north Korea)

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N. (Maybe not all but most major communist countries have a seat, also notice the word satellite as if all things revolve around where communism took root and stemmed from, Russia... the scary part is they see these countries as satellites that revolve aruond them and do their bidding as if they own these places)

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.) (Underway - talks of global government spearheaded by the LIBERAL UN Agenda and other global entities (CFR)... communists have openly stated that America will oppose socialism/communism outright, however if we put the communistic policies under a liberal democratic guise they will accept them)

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party. (Hmm has been happening under a more subtle guise. FBI knocking down legitmate businesses doors because they dont agree with Socialist Communist political beliefs of a president and his followers?? ya it happened at US guitar factory. Also, enactement of laws that undermine the constitution to steal our freedoms... goto the airport for an example)

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths. (loyalty oaths are swore to a country, organization, institution etc ... there is none communism, and Some Americans swear an oath to protect their country against threats that are foreign and domestic, our military is supposed to do this but they cant without a rebellion, which is highly unlikely as no one seems to get flustered anymore when we see the erosion of constitutional freedoms. You dont know what you got till its gone )

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office. ( done, through global billion dollar corporations, patents are bought, sold, sand indviduals without resources are stiffled by those with the power, money, resources to obtain the patents or forms thereof )

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States. (75% of the way there, ill leave this one to your own imagination)

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights. (Enforceme political correctness of Minority agendas, Gay activits, hippie terrorists, anti colonialists, anti west, etc through open character assasination through mass media. Gay marriage legislated upon, abortion now legal which means we value human beings less and less, free speech slowly being eroded and people being persectued in "human rights" trials for saying religious beliefs against the minority activists)

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks. (Remove holocaust from textbooks, forced sex education at a ridiculously young age corrupting the minds of children, say communism is "great in theory" which is a lie its terrible and has never worked for the people)

18. Gain control of all student newspapers. (Universities are almost all liberal hotbeds for minority agendas, where the communist ideals flourish)

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack. (G8 summit protests, not many riots these days though, i guess we have been passified)

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions. (CNN, MSNBC, NBC,ABC the majority of the media is pushing the socialist liberal agenda)

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures. (majority of hollywood, and news media)

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms." (art comes in the form of squares and triangles and does not lift the mind or the soul anymore, pictures of the virgin mary with extrement on her, or urinating on holy obejects as art...)

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch." (healthcare act forcing laws and policies that impact many religious. Obama saying cover up religious symbols when he speaks are "Catholic universities")

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state." (elderly told not to pray in state run facility, liberal Obama bullies at work here picking on people of faith. Remove 10 commandments plaque outside of courts, remove crosses or religious symbols from schools, do not pray in schools now enforced)

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis. (Done and done, trying to add ammendments and lows that undermine the constitution.. and these laws go unchallenged by our courts )

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over. (not yet and probably not necessary)

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc. (ABSO FrICKEN LUTELY - OBAMACARE, SOCIAL SERVICE, MASSIVE WELFARE PROGRAMS, FOOD STAMPS )

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus. (Mentioned above, slowly erroding our rights)

34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities. (Czars that answer to no one but over see entire areas of government policy and make decisions without any controls)

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.(not sure how this will happen or if necessary)

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce. (legalized and common)

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents. (YUP)

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.

45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike. (New world order)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The book was found in the off campus stacks, was ordered and checked. The quote below was checked against the original and is correct. The few errors in the copy from the Congressional Record are shown in [ ] .

Theres an older battle going on of Ideals here. Socialist Communism and things in between those 2 names and idea of a democratic republic.

All you need to do is look at the communist goals of 1963 which I have pasted for you. We are basically at the point where we are just another satellite socialist state of a larger socialist communist country... one where their economy will grow leaps an bounds consistently in the foreseeable future, where ours will wane into a typical socialist economy 1-3% GDP....as we produce/manufacture overseas, service jobs become redundant in the US and if you are not willing to move where the jobs are then you become further dependent on handouts or help. Historically communism was always the enemy, and for good reason, they in many cases violently oppress the people from their freedoms

Bummer, I couldn't read it all. Honestly you lost me at Socialist Communism. Sounds like you had a bad month, preceded by a bad year, preceded by 3 bad years, preceded by a bad decade.

This post makes me think of the Russell Crowe character in "A Beautiful Mind".

So much time and detail given to such obsessive and paranoid thoughts and ideas. The tragedy is that you don't realize it's all just crap. You believe it's true, so for you, it is true. That is sad.

My suggestion: Put your thoughts and energies to more constructive use. Be more optimistic about life. You'll probably feel better.

Because many people believe their own reality is everyone's reality. People need to remember that believing something doesn't make it true and that not believing something doesn't make it untrue.

This subforum is a perfect example of close-minded people on both sides of the political line. It's ironic that his post actually confirms that his comment isn't true either, except for him, in his reality. While damming for his argument, the post is quite true though. Everyone's perception is their reality. Very few people have the ability to disassociate their perception with reality.

Last part of his post also rings true. Happiness is a state of mind. If you're unhappy it's because you don't want to be. It's a decision we all make throughout our lives.

__________________

-Joe

"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." — Frédéric Bastiat

Because many people believe their own reality is everyone's reality. People need to remember that believing something doesn't make it true and that not believing something doesn't make it untrue.

This subforum is a perfect example of close-minded people on both sides of the political line. It's ironic that his post actually confirms that his comment isn't true either, except for him, in his reality. While damming for his argument, the post is quite true though. Everyone's perception is their reality. Very few people have the ability to disassociate their perception with reality.

Last part of his post also rings true. Happiness is a state of mind. If you're unhappy it's because you don't want to be. It's a decision we all make throughout our lives.

True, but the problem with the post I quoted is that instead of pointing out what is wrong or what he disagreed with, they just belittle and attack, like xbook's comment above. Comments like that add nothing to the discussion, even if you are 100% against what was posted.

I'm not saying I agree with what M3Denver posted, but I at least read it in it's entirety and made a decision from that point. Since I really had nothing constructive to say, I declined to comment. If that is what he believes, well then he's allowed to do so. I'm not going to act like a child and call him names and tell him he is living his life wrong.

That is what is really wrong with this section. The majority of people who regularly post here (on both sides) usually only resort to name calling and childish rants, none of which they would do if we were all seated in a room together I'm sure. I think the mods might be on to something, simply shutting things in this subforum down until it gets to the point where no one posts in here anymore, then they delete the subforum entirely. It's been proven time and time again that only a few posters, who don't post often, are capable of intelligent and civil discussion.

True, but the problem with the post I quoted is that instead of pointing out what is wrong or what he disagreed with, they just belittle and attack, like xbook's comment above. Comments like that add nothing to the discussion, even if you are 100% against what was posted.

I'm not saying I agree with what M3Denver posted, but I at least read it in it's entirety and made a decision from that point. Since I really had nothing constructive to say, I declined to comment. If that is what he believes, well then he's allowed to do so. I'm not going to act like a child and call him names and tell him he is living his life wrong.

That is what is really wrong with this section. The majority of people who regularly post here (on both sides) usually only resort to name calling and childish rants, none of which they would do if we were all seated in a room together I'm sure. I think the mods might be on to something, simply shutting things in this subforum down until it gets to the point where no one posts in here anymore, then they delete the subforum entirely. It's been proven time and time again that only a few posters, who don't post often, are capable of intelligent and civil discussion.

Can't argue with this.

__________________

-Joe

"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." — Frédéric Bastiat

This election was not a competition between two candidates. It was Obama buying votes using the tax money of the people who actually work, and Romney trying to figure out how there are so many dumbasses that would still vote for Obama.

To re-cap (and add to): Obama is allowing illegal immigration for the latino vote, free abortions/contraceptives for the female vote, absurd incentives to the Unions for their vote, and he already has a large African vote because he is their "brotha" (i said large, not all are so ignorant). Combine that with the youth's complete ignorance for anything political and the fact that Obama targets them, and your screwed. I wish my tax dollars didnt go towards buying votes for someone i despise...

I wish the intelligence level of the people of this country would increase as fast as the debt Obama is creating